Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Note that:
+------+------+
| | |
| | |
+------+------+
| | |
| | |
+------+------+
may represent two different structures: C-x 2 C-x 3 C-x o C-x 3
or C-x 3 C-x 2 C-x o C-x 2
But in both these cases:
+-------+--------+ +-------+--------+
| | | | | |
| 1 / 3 | | | | 1 / 4 |
| | | | 1 / 2 +--------+
+-------| 2 / 3 | | | |
| | | | | 1 / 4 |
| 1 / 3 | | +-------+--------+
| | | | |
+-------+--------+ | |
| | | 1 / 2 |
| 1 / 3 | | |
| | | |
+-------+--------+ +-------+--------+
the hierarchy of splits is the same, so I don't see why it should
balance differently.
I think a correct algorithm should recover the split tree, then make
the balancing depending on the window counts in subtrees.
Is the problem really that welldefined in Emacs? Do you know how the
windows have been splitted? The difference above may perhaps be seen as
emerging from that difficulty?
_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
